Wright State's Digital Services

Menu

Many publishers are slowly loosening restrictions on authors who wish to repost their work. A large number now allow an author or an author’s employer to post the pre-print or post-print on the web with certain restrictions (a publisher’s statement, an embargo, etc.). This is great news for authors and Institutional Repositories alike, but what we have found is that many authors don’t understand the differences between the various iterations of their work. Below is a short explanation:

Pre-Print: The pre-print version of a publication generally refers to the first draft. This is the version before any peer-review has been performed, and well before the publisher applies any formatting.

Post-Print: The post-print often refers to the version of a work after peer-review has been done and edits have been made, but before the publisher applies branding and formatting. It may be called the final author’s version, the accepted version, or some iteration thereof.

Publisher’s Version: Publisher’s version is the version of the work that is actually published. It generally features the publisher’s branding and formatting, and has page numbers, copyright statements, and anything else the author did not apply in their version.

Many publishers, including well-known names such as Springer, Elsevier, and Wiley, allow pre-prints and post-prints to be added to an author’s Institutional Repository. Unfortunately, many authors do not save their final version before publication, so the opportunity to distribute material to scholars world-wide is missed. We urge faculty to hold on to all versions of their work.

It may be difficult to find the specific copyright parameters you are expected to follow via the publisher’s website. A helpful tool, SHERPA/RoMEO, keeps a current database of most publisher policies, and links you directly to the publisher’s copyright page. SHERPA/RoMEO is incredibly helpful, but it is sometimes hard to keep-up-to-date. I encourage you to use SHERA/RoMEO as starting point, but not as the final word.

As always, if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to email Digital Services. We are happy to help!

Since 2006, the Dayton Literary Peace Prize has awarded adult fiction and non-fiction authors who spread peace by inspiring readers to see the world from different points of view. The Peace Prize has a website that highlights each year’s winners and runners-up, however, Dr. Carol Loranger, a WSU Professor of English and DLPP Steering Committee member, wanted a site to list not only the works that won the Prize, but also to list other works by the winning authors.

CORE Scholar was the solution. We worked with Dr. Loranger to devise a way to list the titles by the Type of Award (Fiction Winner, Fiction Runner-up, Nonfiction Winner, Nonfiction Runner-Up, and Richard C. Holbrooke Distinguished Achievement Award) and by the Year of the Award (2006-2014 and counting!), as well as a giant list of all works by DLPP Recipients and Runners-Up.

The Dayton Literary Peace Prize Cumulative Bibliography holds a total of 392 records (as of 2014). Each record indicates from where the work may be bought or borrowed, which award it won, if applicable, and gives a short description. Text throughout the bibliography informs the reader of each year’s decisions and links to the DLPP website for more information.

To read more about the Dayton Literary Peace Prize Cumulative Bibliography, read the Dialogue story Peace Offering.

On October 24th, Wright State’s Digital Services Department hosted the first Ohio IR Day at the State Library of Ohio. Librarians, archivists, and technologists from throughout the state came together to discuss IRs as a part of celebrating Open Access Week. A total of 32 people attended Ohio IR Day. Attendees came from a variety of institutions including public and private academic libraries, OhioLINK, the Ohio History Connection, and even an academic librarian from out of state.

The day began with institutional introductions in an effort to allow people to familiarize themselves with each other. I heard the same phrase repeated by many of the attendees during this session, “I talked to you on the phone or corresponded with you via email. It is great to put a face with a name.” Next, Ann Connolly, from bepress presented on the Role of IRs in Open Access. She demonstrated the many ways IRs have moved the OA movement forward with examples from several Ohio bepress subscribers. Ann then encouraged audience participation by asking for ideas and suggestions on recruiting content. Participants shared experiences on working with 2nd year faculty, using Digital Measures as a means to capture scholarship, and encouraging the faculty to publish postprints in the IR.

Lightning rounds followed Ann’s presentation. A total of 10 presentations were given on topics such as creating an IR using Hydra, workflow, openURLs, enhancing oral histories, and copyright. We hope to have this material online in the near future at CORE Scholar (corescholar.libraries.wright.edu).

Following the Lightning Rounds, the attendees were broken into smaller groups to hold Birds of a Feather discussions. These discussions focused on topics such as content recruitment, workflow/staffing, digital humanities, archival collections, etc. Groups had lively discussions, were able to hear about projects others were doing, and answered questions about how to tackle some of the issues that confront their IRs.

The meeting closed with a discussion about where to go from here. Many in attendance liked the format saying it was informal and easy to get to. Attendees were happy that there was no registration fee. Others worried that the model may not be sustainable. I will send out a survey shortly to ask for more feedback on the meeting. Please feel free to fill it out even if you did not attend. We would like to hear about how you envision the next meeting.

Overall, I thought the meeting was a great success. The day is exactly what we intended. We wanted to get to know others in the state who are doing the same kind of work and hear about their projects, workflow, roadblocks, successes, and failures. I truly look forward to the next time we meet.

Data is a big deal these days. Many United States’ grants are now requiring the PIs to have plans in place for long-term storage of and access to data resulting from research conducted with grant money. With so much data being generated, it is more important than ever before for scientists to ensure data is properly archived, preserved, and made accessible to others.

Until very recently, data was not the main focus of research. What counted were the results. You hypothesize, conduct the research, analyze the data, and publish. If another scientist would like access to the data, he/she would have to contact the PI (as long as the contact information was accurate), and hope someone thought to keep multiple copies in technology formats that weren’t obsolete.

Data was getting lost, forgotten about, or simply was inaccessible by those outside the research. This data was often collected by means of a taxpayer-funded grant provided by a U.S. Government agency, and many taxpayers were unable to access it.

The White House took notice. In early 2013, the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a Memorandum outlining the plan for any government agency with over $100 million in annual research and development expenses to devise a plan for increased public access to the data, research, and the resulting publications.

That was a hefty declaration that left many scrambling to understand what role research universities should play, could play, and would play in preserving and facilitating access to this research data. On June 7, 2013, the SHARE (SHared Access Research Ecosystem) Initiative was proposed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). The Initiative declared that university-based repositories will take on the responsibilities of long-term preservation and global access of the publically funded research. SHARE was awarded a $1 million grant, has formed multiple steering and working groups, and is tirelessly exploring how to build the network of repositories that will house the research.

The WSU Digital Services Team has also been exploring what role Wright State and CORE Scholar could play in housing and sharing research data resulting from public funds. We are able to provide PIs with data management services necessary for grants, including help and advice on writing the Data Management Plan, and the storage, preservation, and dissemination of data to a worldwide audience.

In honor of Open Access Week and to better educate the WSU campus on issues involving data management, Digital Services has invited Dr. Caroline Whitacre, Vice President for Research at The Ohio State University, and member of the SHARE Steering Group, to speak to WSU faculty and staff about SHARE during the Wright State University/Cleveland State University Joint Open Access Symposium on October 22nd.

Dr. Whitacre will speak at 2:45 pm in Dunbar Library 441. Event details and full schedule can be found at http://libraries.wright.edu/calendar/events.php. If you have any questions regarding the Symposium, Data Management Plans, or Open Access, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

Photographers are artists and have ideas on how they want their art to look. When an image is printed by the photographer, whether via chemical processing or digital photo editing and a printer, it is ideally created with the photographer’s artistic choices. Thus, scanning this photograph is merely choosing to make it look like the original (“merely” is a bad word choice because it’s not that easy, but it’s easier than the area in which I’m about to delve).

Scanning Negatives is a whole different circus. The digitizer has highlights and shadows to set and guide the process, but not the photographer’s eye to help show what the artist intended. Why did he or she light the area so? Why did he not plan for the white of the wedding dress to wash out the bride’s face? Why did she not see that the guest in the bright red would have a glow war with the white of the groom’s tux? For class photos in school, I was constantly reminded by my mother not to wear white or red because of how it discolors my face in the photo, so it’s not a foreign concept to some, but it is an issue that is easier dealt with before the negative is made, even if only by the photographer’s choices.

Those who digitize can only do triage, however. There are many different settings in the scanning software, Photoshop, and other photo editors where one can choosing type of film, highlights, shadows, saturation, contrast, and the like that help fix each issue, but it becomes an intricate balance of setting adjustment to make the image turn out. Just when the guest’s red dress doesn’t make her skin look burned and the groom’s tux no longer washes out his face, the digitizer sees that the bride’s dress has embroidered white on white. This is after fighting with lens flash flares, reflection glares, and Moiré patterns from the glossiness of the negative (the quick fix for the latter is to flip it over and reverse the image in the scanning program).

It would be simple to give the photographer the shopping list of ideas on watching that mirror or window’s impact, using natural lighting, and telling people not to wear bright red, yellow, or white. However, most photographers know how to work with these elements and work around these elements. The digitizer can’t be choosy. So, it’s back to adjusting the highlights and shadows to keep the photo from washing out, easing the contrast up to bring back details, watching the saturation to keep the colors overcoming lighter colors, and checking your mid-tone range.

We recently surveyed interest in holding a special day dedicated to Institutional Repositories across Ohio as part of Open Access Week and received a tremendous response to our inquiry! Thus, we are moving forward with holding an informal get-together and knowledge share.

The Ohio IR Day will take place on October 24, 2014 at the State Library of Ohio Boardroom (274 E 1st Ave # 100, Columbus, OH 43201) from 10:00am-2:00pm.

The day will consist of introductions, Lightning Rounds, Birds of a Feather discussion, and a speaker from bepress on IRs.

We are currently soliciting ideas for the Lightning Rounds. We hope to have topics covered such as workflow, outreach, content types, assessment, scholarly communication, etc. If you would like to participate in the Lightning Rounds, please include your topic when registering and plan to speak for 5 minutes.

Instead of providing lunch, we ask you to bring your own or contribute $5.00 and we will pick up pizza and drinks.

A new school year is upon us, and Digital Services would like to highlight what CORE Scholar can do for our community.

CORE Scholar is an institutional repository sponsored by the Wright State University Libraries and managed by the Digital Services Department. The IR collects and makes available the scholarly output of Wright State faculty and students. The material is free and open to the world. Users only need an internet connection to see and download the superb research of Wright State University.

Digital Services handles the population and management of CORE Scholar. Below are some of the great services offered by DS:

I attended the 29th annual Computers in Libraries Conference in Washington DC. The conference itself is regarded as one of the most comprehensive; covering all aspects of library and information delivery technology. With the wide range of topics, the programs and presentation themes varied widely, with the key driver as ‘moving the library forward in the digital age.’

I had the pleasure of attending many programs during the conference, with several standouts, such as (to name a few); Super Searcher Tips, highlighted new strategies, techniques and tips for getting the most out of web research; Re-Imagining the Library Website Experience, gave insights and ideas from experienced and knowledgeable library web experts about design/redesign of engaging websites and using analytics; Weathering the Virtual Library, this session looks at virtual library’s immediate response to storms, steps taken in the following days, and addressing future challenges; Flipping Your Library, which explored ways in which librarians use technology tools and web resources to flip the library experience through websites, screencasts, blogs, and social media.

There were many other interesting topics throughout the conference, but the keynote was by far my favorite. Presented by Mike Lydon, (Principal, The Street Plans Collaborative & Author, Tactical Urbanism), he covered Hacking Library Spaces, Lessons from Tactical Urbanism. The presentation was so interesting because of its high relevancy – our society is rapidly changing – communities, campuses, the publishing industry; this naturally plays a huge impact on our libraries and also poses a challenge to our system and how we can (quickly) adapt. Mr. Lydon brought examples of how he transformed parking lots into parks and plazas, putting up informational and directional signs to encourage walking in neighborhoods, and slowing traffic by altering curbs with traffic cones. Lyon’s key components are simple. He advocates for communities to build, measure, and learn. He encouraged library institutions throughout the county to start small and get their prototype out and operating as soon as possible.

As I listened to Mr. Lydon’s keynote my mind began to think of how I can incorporate these principles into a digital services environment. It was an exciting talk to listen to, stretching my imagination and providing lots of ideas to take back to my department. He stressed five steps in order to embed tactical urbanism into the library: pilot test, improve the interface between the library and the city, use existing initiatives, and my favorite scale down to scale up. He ended his speech by saying, “If the city is the original internet, then the library is its server.”

Outside of presentations, there was time between sessions to visit booths to view digital equipment, and learn about new innovative techniques that are being applied throughout North America. This was a valuable time to learn new practices that could be applied for better workflow or help set goals for future processes and even equipment that could one day be utilized in the WSU Libraries.

Finally, I got to participate in a luncheon hosted by the Smithsonian Institution. It was a great opportunity to look behind the scenes of the Smithsonian exhibits and collections. Gale Cengage partnered with the Smithsonian and is digitizing primary source materials, content that is only available onsite at the Smithsonian Institution from deep within the museums, libraries, and archives of the world’s largest museum and research complex, making it available digitally, in searchable formats, and integrating it with software that aligns with scholarly workflow.

The Smithsonian’s content is centered in the world’s largest museum complexes and their Imaging Center digitizes this content with a vast array of equipment to provide high quality digital images. The digitized documents within Smithsonian Collections Online are rich in their ability to be the source of new and exciting scholarship.

I always appreciate the opportunity to step outside of a normal workday and learn more about the changes that are happening to the library system on a greater level. The conference provided great insight to how, like everything else, the library system is always evolving and it’s important to stay up on the latest technologies and practices, as we continue to ‘move the library forward in the digital age.’

When I arrived at Wright State University Libraries in the end of January 2013, as a new librarian, I had no idea that one task would dominate so much of my time here. Shortly after my arrival we were alerted to the fact that our DSpace-based Institutional Repository would no longer be supported. Since I was originally going to be the primary librarian uploading content to CORE (our DSpace IR) I was chosen to be the “migration guy.”

The migration impacted the next year of my life. I was suddenly in charge of moving 5,000 items from our DSpace platform to our new Digital Commons repository. We began talking about the migration in February and March of 2013, and the last nail was driven into the migration’s coffin in December of that year.

I presented on my experience at the 2013 DCGLUG (Digital Commons Great Lakes Users’ Group) Conference, for the OHIODIG (Ohio Digitization Interest Group) in January, and most recently at SOA’s (Society of Ohio Archivists) Annual Conference. The last two presentations were performed as part of a group. I wanted to use this post to collect what I learned from these presentations:

NUMBER 1: It’s a learning process.

I didn’t know how to perform a website audit. I didn’t know how the handles (persistent URLs) were maintained. I didn’t really know much about our collections. That being said, I investigated how others prepared a website audit (they counted links and pages). I researched the Handle System and ultimately found out that maintaining it would incur a separate expense as well as cost us time. I also learned about the Wright Brothers, a variety of oral histories from the area, and more.

NUMBER 2: It is a learning process, but be practical about how you use your time.

In my research for ways to perform an audit I found that some people used web-crawler software; however, I found it to be unreliable and difficult to retrieve consistent results. So I abandoned it. I manually clicked through every page listing the communities, series, and all the items attached to records.

We were offered a PERL application from Asbury Theological Seminary. I lacked the familiarity to use it properly; thus, I abandoned that too.

I had to make the decision about whether to spend extra time attempting to understand these programs with an unsure final outcome, or I could get to work, performing tedious tasks, but accomplishing something. I choose to start the project.

NUMBER 3: The Most Important Thing about Migrating Your Content…It takes time.

The process will take longer than you estimate. This was a truth echoed by my peers as well. No matter the planning and best efforts, there will always be unforeseen anomalies that need their own special solution. The differences in how the two systems worked often required me to re-evaluate my planning.

In the end I learned a lot about our collections, DSpace, Digital Commons, and most importantly how to plan and carry out a migration between systems. I’m sure, that if I ever have to migrate again, there will be new issues and concerns; however, I have a solid plan of attack and am confident on how to proceed. I’ll just hope I don’t have to perform another migration for a long time…

Yesterday, I presented at the OhioLINK Subject Librarians Webinar: Researcher Services. The focus of my talk was the types of services an institutional repository can offer to undergrads with a research agenda. In preparation for this presentation, I took a hard look at the benefits undergrads can receive from posting in an IR, like CORE Scholar.

First, undergrads are able to include papers, presentations, posters, and data in our repository. By doing so, students are making their materials available to a worldwide audience. We are hopeful that this will help them while job hunting or applying to graduate school. Second, they have the opportunity to publish an article in an open access peer reviewed journal. Lastly, we are educating these users at an early stage of their careers about authors’ rights and open access. These students are future faculty, scholars, and researchers. If we can get them to understand the importance of author’s rights and open access now, it will be normal practice for them to seek out open access journals, question publisher’s policies, and ask for rights to use their articles as they wish.

There are more benefits that we hope to offer undergrads as our IR develops. We are looking to include the ability to add Creative Commons licenses, use ORCID identifiers, and altmetrics. If you would like to learn more or get a copy of my presentation, please don’t hesitate to contact me (jane.wildermuth@wright.edu).